On beautiful and sublime.

javi2541997

What is beautiful? Are we missing the basic sense of beauty inside aesthetics? Furthermore, how would you describe the sublime? Is there a distinction between "beautiful" and "sublime?"

According to PhD. Kelly Ross: The companion term of the "beautiful" in aesthetics, the "sublime," however, is somewhat more obscure and resistant to definition, and even recognition. When we then ask how the "sublime" relates to Rudolf Otto's "numinous," which is perhaps even more obscure and is sometimes identified with "sublime," the difficulties increase. But both "sublime" and "numinous" can be clarified at the same time in regard to each other, deepening the definition and our understanding of each.
From the Greek term, we get a Latin translation, the adjective sublimis, meaning "high, raised, lifted up; sublime, elevated, lofty." So from all of this, we get the idea that we are dealing with something high, lofty, exalted, superior, etc. This adds a marked element to mere beauty, and it tends to do so in moral terms or in natural terms. Our question must be whether it does so in supernatural terms, as with numinosity. Otto's word, of course, derives from Latin numen, "the divine will, divine command; the might of a deity, majesty, divinity."

The sublime seems to have entered modern discourse with a translation and discussion

According to Kant's Critique of Judgement: Sublimity, therefore, does not reside in anything of nature, but only in our mind, in so far as we can become conscious that we are superior to nature within, and therefore also to nature without us (as far as it influences us). Everything that excites this feeling in us, i.e. the might of nature which calls forth our forces, is called then (although improperly) sublime.

But according to Edmund Burke: But let it be considered that hardly anything can strike the mind with its greatness, which does not make some sort of approach towards infinity; which nothing can do whilst we are able to perceive its bounds, but to see an object distinctly, and to perceive its bounds, is one and the same thing. A clear idea is therefore another name for a little idea. There is a passage in the book of Job that is amazingly sublime, and this sublimity is principally due to the terrible uncertainty of the thing described. The key things about this passage, which do not seem quite the things to associate with the merely sublime, are the "fear" and "trembling," and the extraordinary experience of "the hair of my flesh stood up."

It is noteworthy that with both Kant and Burke, the classic authorities on the sublime, we find them in important matters entirely out of their reckoning. They both fit the popular maxim that if all you have is a hammer, then everything is going to look like a nail. Kant's hammer is morality. So of course an aesthetic experience is not of what we are actually looking at, it is an echo of God by way of the Moral Law. Burke, with less monomania and so a larger toolbox, nevertheless takes up one tool, "obscurity,".

Where Burke looked at the Presence of God and saw something really big, and Kant looked at Nature and saw the "Moral Law within..."

Which are your opinions on this topic?

Tom Storm

What is beautiful? Are we missing the basic sense of beauty inside aesthetics? — javi2541997

Unless you are a Platonist, isn't beauty just a term used to deal with personal taste and/or intersubjective value systems? I have virtually no use for the word beauty in my daily life and although I find some things aesthetically pleasing - this might be because they are striking rather than 'beautiful'. Ditto sublime - I have no knowledge or experience of a word like this but recognise its romantic and quasi-religious associations for others.

javi2541997

I have virtually no use for the word beauty in my daily life and although I find some things aesthetically pleasing - this might be because they are striking rather than 'beautiful'. — Tom Storm

Interesting point of view and thanks for answering your aesthetic experience. But I think that even if we don't use the word "beauty", we all have like a basic sense of it... or at least the opposite: ugliness.

sublime - I have no knowledge or experience of a word like this but recognise its romantic and quasi-religious associations for others. — Tom Storm

It is true that the sublime is related to religious themes. Nevertheless, I see it as "perfection". We all should have a basic concept of "beauty" (as you explained in a Platonist view, for example) which is intersubjective (I guess).
But sublime it seems to go beyond. It is something like "supernatural" as Otto stated. An essence we cannot reach and it accommodates in our fantasies and dreams

Tom Storm

Nevertheless, I see it as "perfection". — javi2541997

I hear you.

Personally, I don't recognize 'perfection' as anything more than a word employed in various contexts. I am not aware of any example of perfection in the world, except when the word is used in a quotidian context to subjectively describe the best example of something - eg,' This cake is perfection.'

We all should have a basic concept of "beauty" (as you explained in a Platonist view, for example) which is intersubjective (I guess). — javi2541997

The Platonic view is idealism, which transcends the intersubjective account. If you accept Platonic idealism then in some realm there exists truth, goodness and beauty as immutable forms, and on earth all we see are their instantiations. I don't have good reasons to accept this account.

But I think that even if we don't use the word "beauty", we all have like a basic sense of it... or at least the opposite: ugliness. — javi2541997

I generally find the beauty/ugly bifurcation as problematic as good/evil or Madonna/whore style pairings. Human beings make value judgements about the things they see and experience. I prefer not to get carried away with emotional reactions and concomitant superlatives or denigrations.

180 Proof

What is beautiful? Are we missing the basic sense of beauty inside aesthetics? — javi2541997

This link to an old post is my general treatment of the topics raised here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344963

Furthermore, how would you describe the sublime?

A pleasure so extreme it terrorizes as it fascinates.

Is there a distinction between "beautiful" and "sublime?"

The latter terrifies and the former seduces.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Verum (truth) liberates!

Pulchrum (beauty) enslaves!

Bonum (good) ____ (fill in the blank).

javi2541997

I am not aware of any example of perfection in the world, except when the word is used in a quotidian context to subjectively describe the best example of something - eg,' This cake is perfection.' — Tom Storm

But we should not give up on objectively context. The paper I have read yesterday propose that there are some "supernatural" examples which we can consider as "high" or "top quality". Thus, the ones who goes further than just "beauty"
Kant and Otto connected the sublime with objects that are unrepeatable such as Egyptian pyramids.

javi2541997

This link to an old post is my general treatment of the topics raised here: — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing. I would check it out later on :up:

A pleasure so extreme it terrorizes as it fascinates. — 180 Proof

Interesting. You follow the thesis of Edmund Burke then. I respect it indeed. But I don't see why a pleasure can "terrorizes" me. I guess something sublime not only fascinates but gives a context of pure satisfaction. It is far of being terrified.
Nevertheless, I guess you explained it in the link you posted above

javi2541997

Bonum (good) ____ (fill in the blank). — Agent Smith

I think "bonum" or "good" is related to ethics rather than aesthetics :chin:

Noble Dust

Unless you are a Platonist, isn't beauty just a term used to deal with personal taste and/or intersubjective value systems? — Tom Storm

I think it's simpler than that. Beauty is an experience that's self evident. Today at work I helped a girl who I've seen from time to time, and she always makes a lot of eye contact with me. Her eyes are beautiful. I don't think anyone would disagree with my personal opinion on her eyes if given the chance to assess.

But that tells us something. The human experience of making sustained eye contact with another elicits many things in us, but this experience can, I think, be objectively described as an experience of beauty.

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

Bonum (good) :zip:

javi2541997

but this experience can, I think, be objectively described as an experience of beauty. — Noble Dust

Agree and interesting experience you have shared with us

:up: :100:

Noble Dust

↪javi2541997

:flower:

Tom Storm

I think it's simpler than that. Beauty is an experience that's self evident. — Noble Dust

It's precisely the lack of this 'self-evidence' that makes me hold the opposite view. People do not share views on beauty in art, or in people. Sure there are some intersubjective, shared common opinions, often culturally located, but it is not immutable.

Noble Dust

↪Tom Storm

What I'm suggesting is that looking deeply into this girls eyes would sufficiently convince you otherwise. But of course you'll disagree until you actually do it, which you won't, given the circumstances. So there's no way for me to demonstrate this.

180 Proof

I don't see why a pleasure can "terrorizes" me. — javi2541997

Perhaps traumatizes (i.e. to wound, to disturb, to call-oneself-into-question) is more precise than "terrorizes". Aren't there any e.g. works of art, experiences of nature or erotic encounters, javi, which have irreparably changed some aspect of your life, your self-awareness, in large or small ways? Sublime events, I feel, can leave deep, ecstatic scars.

For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror
which we are barely able to endure, and it amazes us so,
because it serenely disdains to destroy us.
Every angel is terrible. — Duino Elegies

I suppose I do not agree with Burke or Kant ...

Perhaps beauty corresponds to pleasure from "unknown knowns" (i.e. what we don't (want to) know we know ~ sex) and sublimity corresponds to pleasure from "unknown unknowns" (i.e. what we don't (want to) know we don't (want to) know ~ death). The latter, of course, is unrepeatable whereas the former seems to deepen through exquisite repetition.

Tom Storm

What I'm suggesting is that looking deeply into this girls eyes would sufficiently convince you otherwise. — Noble Dust

I know that's what you're suggesting.

So there's no way for me to demonstrate this. — Noble Dust

Of course not.

You make it sound like mysticism. But my question is why do you think your experience transcends your experience or even some intersubjective cultural agreement on human eye beauty? Do you think someone from the indigenous Australian community in the remote Kimberley would share your experience?

Tom Storm

But we should not give up on objectively context. The paper I have read yesterday propose that there are some "supernatural" examples which we can consider as "high" or "top quality". Thus, the ones who goes further than just "beauty" — javi2541997

I guess I reject this idea. Sounds like we believe in different things. :smile:

Noble Dust

You make it sound like mysticism. — Tom Storm

It is mysticism!

Do you think someone from the indigenous Australian community in the remote Kimberly would share your experience? — Tom Storm

I think so. I think the beauty of eye contact is universal.

Tom Storm

↪Noble Dust

Ok, thanks for clarifying this. I think contact between humans is a different phenomenon. We seem to have moved from eyes which can be described as beautiful, to something else involving eye contact and interaction.

javi2541997

Perhaps traumatizes (i.e. to wound, to disturb, to call-oneself-into-question) — 180 Proof

Yes! I see your point now. I like how you describe it as "call-oneself-into-question". Until we do not experience such state of mind we don't put ourselves into question or doubt. It looks like when a explosion of colours shapes in a white paper.

Aren't there any e.g. works of art, experiences of nature or erotic encounters, javi, which have irreparably changed some aspect of your life, your self-awareness, in large or small ways? — 180 Proof

Completely. Yukio Mishima's books, for example. I have experienced a big change in my awareness in a huge way after reading those. I understand now why I always consider it as "sublime" their works. They changed my way of seeing the life. Before that I didn't even know a basic concept of aesthetics, but afterwards, I have evolved to a different person with different views in arts: Loneliness, self-discipline, ephemeral, the way of samurai, etc...

javi2541997

Sounds like we believe in different things. :smile: — Tom Storm

I respect it Tom :smile: thanks you because you always take part in my threads or discussions and I appreciate that

Tom Storm

↪javi2541997

No worries. I like hearing different views to mine. :pray:

Noble Dust

↪Tom Storm

I appreciate your level-headedness despite disagreeing with you. Just wanted to mention that I value discussions with you.

I think contact between humans is a different phenomenon. — Tom Storm

Different to what and in what way?

We seem to have moved from eyes which can be described as beautiful, to something else involving eye contact and interaction. — Tom Storm

You feel I've moved my goalposts? I didn't mean to. Let me know if I'm not understanding here.

180 Proof

↪javi2541997

Yukio Mishima was almost too much for me in my early twenties, I owe his sublime works a rereading – renewed encounter – soon in order to discover how they will affect me now in my late fifties.

:death: :flower:

Agent Smith

Bonum (good) analgesizes slavery and/or ecstasizes liberty!

javi2541997

Yukio Mishima was almost too much for me in my early twenties, — 180 Proof

I am 25 years old and yes they are too much for me. The first book I have read of him was four years ago, so I am following your path!

I owe his sublime works a rereading – renewed encounter – soon in order to discover how they will affect me now in my late fifties. — 180 Proof

It would be a unique experience. I also want to reread their works some years after. But I personally think that Mishima's art is timeless and this is why his figure still there during the decades

Tom Storm

You feel I've moved my goalposts? I didn't mean to. Let me know if I'm not understanding here. — Noble Dust

No, I wasn't thinking you moved the goalposts - that sounds pejorative. I think the conversation kind of evolved. I thought we were talking about eyes that appear beautiful, but when you wrote:

the beauty of eye contact is universal. — Noble Dust

We are now exploring eye contact which for me sounds like we are talking about an interaction. Beauty on the inside, revealed in the eyes, perhaps? Either way, it's not an issue that requires much analysis. I was just curious about your take. I have not always understood the word beauty because to me it's more of an umbrella term used to describe a range of qualities; pleasing, striking, compelling, alluring, touching, etc - and such things are understood differently by people and cultures. I think when we call use the word 'beauty' and cram all those ideas into one enigmatic word, we charge it with mystical power that it can't really hold. But that's me, right? :smile:

Noble Dust

↪Tom Storm

Yeah, I guess I'm saying that eye contact is universally beautiful. So I'm saying it's an experiential argument against your position where beauty is too relative of a term to define. I'm presenting the beauty of eye contact as an experiential evidence for beauty as being a real thing. And yes, this is a bit of an emotional or woo woo definition on my part, which I'm fine with. Maybe that's where we differ.

It's also weird that some eyes are considered more beautiful than other eyes. Maybe it's just personal, but why is it that sometimes you make eye contact with someone and feel that you've just been zapped with a laser? I don't know. I know this isn't high philosophy.

Agent Smith

eye contact — Noble Dust

Me, a talking stone (not kiddin'). I was petrified!

Fight/flight/Freeze!!!

:nerd:

Noble Dust

↪Agent Smith

I can't wrap my head around Greek mythology. It can't just be invented stories.

On beautiful and sublime.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions